Public Bill Committee

[David Taylor in the Chair]

David Taylor: I welcome hon. Members to the sixth sitting of this public Bill. I am grateful to my co-Chair, Mr. Christopher Chope, for taking the first five sittings. I expect to take the remainder of the sittings, bar one, overlapping into the autumn period.

Clause 9

Annual report to Secretary of State

Amendment moved [this day]: No. 10, clause 9, page 4, line 32, after ‘on’, insert ‘section 7(1) and’.—[Andrew Selous.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

David Taylor: I remind the Committee that with this we are taking the following amendments:
No. 11, in clause 9, page 4, line 32, at end insert
‘; and, in respect of each authorisation under section 8(1), details of the body to whom the functions of the Commission have been delegated and their performance in contributing to the Commission’s objectives.’.
No. 9, in clause 9, page 4, line 32, at end insert—
‘(e) the number of children who live apart from one or both of their parents who are eligible for child maintenance under the Child Support Act 1991;
(f) the proportion of those children for whom child maintenance has been paid in the previous year;
(g) the type of arrangement—whether voluntary or under the statutory scheme;
(h) where child maintenance has been paid, details of the amount; the frequency of payment; whether paid in full or in part; and whether paid on time.’.
No. 69, in clause 9, page 4, line 32, at end insert—
‘(e) the extent to which the Commission has made progress regarding the collection and payment of arrears.’.
No. 82, in clause 9, page 4, line 32, at end insert—
‘(d) details of any complaints received and how these complaints were handled.’.
No. 13, in clause 9, page 4, line 39, at end insert
‘and must make a motion in the House of Commons in relation to each such report.’.

Paul Rowen: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Taylor.
Just before the break, I was talking about amendments Nos. 10 and 11 and I shall continue. The Minister said, when we were talking about contracting out, that it was highly likely that other Departments may be involved in dealing with some of the work. I took it from that that he was talking about Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, particularly in respect of some of the assessments and collecting the money. If HMRC is to be involved in that process, and if other private agencies are to be involved in collecting debt or third sector bodies in providing information, it is important that information about how they are progressing and dealing with the case forms part of the annual report.
As I said previously, we have so little information in the Bill—we do not even have draft regulations in front of us—and we do not know how different the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission’s ways of working will be from those of the Child Support Agency. It is therefore important that what the annual report will deliver is written down and agreed early on. It is of major importance to the House and the public that the new agency gets off on the right foot, sets itself clear objectives and is held accountable to the House for the progress that is being made.
Amendment No. 9, which we support, seeks more detail about the numbers of children that will be dealt with—the numbers receiving payments—and the type of arrangements. Because we are talking about a shift and a move back to more private arrangements, I should think that the Select Committee on Work and Pensions would want to scrutinise the operation of the new systems. Again, we would support that.
Amendment No. 69, tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, reiterates that we will not let the issue of historic debt go away. As we heard in the evidence presented by One Parent Families last week, the information about the current historic debt is extremely flaky. It is important that, in the interim, before CMEC is set up, we ensure that that information is firmed up. As I said last week, there is more than £1 billion of historic arrears, but the current targets for the CSA only deal with £213 million. We need some clear assurances and clear information about what is happening to that old, historic debt. That needs to be dealt with and we need to know how it is to be done.
I was disappointed with the Minister’s response to me that,
“the debt has arisen because of the lack of co-operation of non-resident parents, who simply have not faced up to their responsibility....That is ultimately where the fault of the situation lies.”——[Official Report, Child Maintenance and Other Payments Public Bill Committee, 19 July 2007; c. 116.]
I ask the Minister to go back, pre-CSA, and look at why the CSA was brought into being. I am sure that the hon. Member for Daventry is in a better position than me to comment on that. Nevertheless, the CSA was brought into being because the court system, as it then existed, was not working for the same reason that the Minister now gives for the CSA not working, and it is important that we understand and accept that point when we consider the arrangements for the operation of CMEC.
In my experience as a teacher, one accepted that certain children were always going to be naughty. One was not surprised if they were, but one planned one’s lessons to ensure that they did not disrupt what was happening. When dealing with non-resident, non-paying parents, we must accept and understand that many will try every trick in the book to avoid paying. The systems that we set up must be robust enough to ensure that they cannot do so.
I welcome the Bill’s greater teeth and tougher powers. It will enable CMEC to get stuck in, which is fine with the new arrangements. I said last week that we do not want the agency to use this clean break as an excuse to wash its hands of that difficult debt, which has sat there for years and not been addressed. We want to ensure that Parliament holds the new body to account, because as I said last week, the Government made a different decision from that in the Henshaw report. Henshaw’s recommendation was not that the historic debt should move over to CMEC, but that it should sit elsewhere. The Government have not taken that decision; they have said that the historic debt will go with the new body.

Tim Boswell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, particularly as he gave me a slightly back-handed compliment a while ago. He is making an entirely sensible set of remarks. Does not he remember that, even in those days of intervening revolutions, with Boxer bonds or Chinese sovereign debt, countries that wished to re-borrow on the world market had to be seen to make some effort before they could restore their credibility? Although one is business, or possibly politics, and the other is domestic, is that not a principle worth sustaining?

Paul Rowen: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that comment. Yes, of course, that principle is worth sustaining; it is hugely important to the credibility of the new organisation. We have lost a generation of children who have not received the child maintenance, and therefore the start in life, to which they were entitled. There are still people who look to Parliament and to the Government to restore their confidence and ensure that the money that they are owed is paid. That must be the new agency’s overriding target. It must address that issue, and I hope that the Minister will deal with that point. The Bill is all very well and good, but it contains warm words and it is not specific. The amendments are an attempt to be specific.
Amendment No. 82 deals with the details of complaints. Many Members will say that the way in which complaints are dealt with is absolutely disgraceful. I have not been in this place as long as many other Members, but when somebody gets a £25—I hesitate to say—book token or whatever as a fob-off for a significant period of considerable emotional distress, I find that it is an insult to people’s intelligence. At the end of a long process, during which they have had to fight for every penny and make the CSA admit that the mistake lies with how it has handled the case, not with the case itself, that is an insult.
I hope that the new agency has a much better way of handling complaints, and that it will pay compensation. We had a debate about these matters earlier in the Committee; the fact that people are not prepared to admit that they are liable is not acceptable. We want to see in place a really strong system that will handle complaints and ensure that redress is dealt with and delivered speedily, and not with the insult that occurs at present. We want to see some of the complaints listed in the annual report and a general picture of what has happened, and we will need to know how complaints were dealt with.
We would also support amendment No. 13, which is about ensuring that the House has an opportunity to debate the report. It ought to be automatic that CMEC, at least in its early stages, reports to the House annually to demonstrate why it is a fresh start, and how it is dealing with some of the historic problems.

James Plaskitt: It is a pleasure to have you chair our proceedings, Mr. Taylor.
All but one of the amendments would require the commission to report on additional matters in the annual report. However, the clause contains a wide-ranging provision that requires the commission to report on all the activities it has undertaken in the preceding financial year. Such provisions are entirely standard in the founding legislation for non-departmental public bodies; almost identical clauses can be found in respect of the Environment Agency, the Pensions Regulator and the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service. The clause goes further, however, than the standard for non-departmental public bodies because it highlights in addition four particular areas on which the commission must focus in its annual report.
Incidentally, following our debate last week, there might be some confusion about where the specifics of the annual report will be detailed. To clarify, the specifics of the annual report will be in clause 9, and not, as I said last week, in regulations.
The four specific areas on which the commission will focus are: first, the strategic direction of the commission and how that is kept under review; secondly, the steps it takes to meet its objectives and targets and the extent to which they have been met; thirdly, how the commission has monitored its performance in respect of carrying out its functions effectively and efficiently; and fourthly, the commission will report on the extent to which it has considered the contracting out of any of its functions. Substantially more weight is therefore placed on the annual report than would normally be the case, which underlines the importance that we will place on the annual report.
In this morning’s sitting, the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire asked whether we expect quarterly performance reports to continue. The answer is that I do.

Danny Alexander: Will the Minister comment on the extent to which he expects CMEC to publish its annual reports in a timely way? A written statement today states that publication of the CSA’s annual report, which would, according to normal practice, occur before the recess, has been delayed until after. I hope that the Minister would not wish to see CMEC get into such practices.

James Plaskitt: I do not see that as some sort of precedent and I expect the annual report to come out on a regular basis.
On amendments Nos. 9 and 69, we believe that clause 9 already places sufficiently comprehensive reporting requirements on the commission. Of particular importance is the requirement to report against its objectives and targets.
As we all know, the commission’s main objective is to maximise the number of effective maintenance arrangements. In order to report against that, the commission will need to establish a range of measures similar to those proposed by amendment No. 9. The measures will be drawn from studies and surveys such as the family resources survey and the family and children study. We do not want to define the measures in the Bill because, among other things, we would be concerned that the measures may not be available in the exact form stipulated by legislation.
Amendment No. 69 would specifically require the commission’s annual report to cover its progress in collecting arrears. Again, the commission will be required to report against its objectives, so that is already covered. As hon. Members know, one of the objectives is to secure compliance with parental obligations—in other words, to get parents to pay all, and I stress all, that is owing, which includes debt. The commission must report on its progress on debt collections.
The hon. Member for Rochdale wanted me to acknowledge the continued importance that we place on collecting debt. It is one reason why we did not pursue Sir David’s recommendation, but the responsibility carries on. Far from being downgraded or overlooked, it is as important as it ever was. The historic debt built up for a variety of reasons, only one of which is, unfortunately, the persistent non-compliance of a large number of non-resident parents. In introducing the commission and setting out its operational framework, we have to learn lessons from the Child Support Agency.
We know that some of the debt arose because of the extraordinary complexity of the calculations that had to be made to come up with the maintenance assessments in the first place. In turn, that led to a lot of interim maintenance assessments that were rather wide of the mark, which added to the problems. We are learning as we go, and we have certainly learnt from the CSA experience what should not be repeated in the operation of the commission. However, that is not to downgrade the importance of continuing to pursue the debt. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have recently given the existing agency additional measures to go after some of that long outstanding debt, and early indications are that they are proving quite successful.

Andrew Selous: I would like the Minister to say something about a matter that arose in an earlier sitting: how debt is treated after six years. I think there is a legal change, which worries me greatly, as I have in the past told my constituents not to worry because their ex-husband or partner has a lifetime liability to pay the money to their children, even if he is still doing so when he approaches retirement. I hope I was honest and accurate in saying that.

James Plaskitt: I think that the hon. Gentleman has given sound advice to his constituents. My recollection is that in recent cases the agency has been successful in collecting debt that is more than six years old, deploying some of the new methods that we have given to it.
Amendment No. 82 would insert the requirement to report the details of any complaints received and how they are dealt with. The reasons behind the amendment are completely understandable, but the clause as drafted requires that the commission reports the steps taken to monitor its performance in ensuring that all its functions are exercised effectively and efficiently.
Customer service including complaints handling is an important function of any public body and it is our full intention that the commission will report on the standards achieved against any complaints targets within the annual report, much as the Child Support Agency does, without the need for it to be specified in legislation.
The independent case examiner will also continue to produce an annual report on complaints received about child support, with any recommendations taken fully into consideration by the commission. In addition, the commission is required under schedule 7 to report on the standards achieved in decisions relating to child support appeals.
Amendment No. 10 would require the commission to report on the extent to which it has relied on the provision for agency arrangements in clause 7(1). That would bring it into parallel with clause 8(1)—the provision for contracting out. We have included the specific requirement to report in clause 8(1) because of the emphasis that Sir David Henshaw placed on contracting out in his report. We therefore thought it sensible to include an explicit provision covering the extent to which the commission contracts out its services.
Clause 7(1) provides for the commission to enter into arrangements with other public bodies and Departments. That is not exceptional; the provision is used, for example, by the Welsh Assembly to allow a variety of joint working across Government. It will also allow for a continuation of the existing arrangements with Northern Ireland, to which I referred earlier. There was no case for making explicit provision for reporting on it. However, it is likely that the commission would report on any such arrangements in reporting on its activities in the previous financial year.

Andrew Selous: I asked the Minister whether he could give the Committee an idea of who those relevant authorities would be. I should like to see the widest possible co-operation with CMEC across Government, but I am still a little hazy as to which organisations we are talking about.

James Plaskitt: A relevant authority in this clause would be any Minister of the Crown or Government Department, or any public body specified in the regulations.
Amendment No. 11 would force the commission to give details of the bodies to whom the functions of the commission have been delegated and their performance in contributing to the commission’s objectives. To do so in line with the amendment could cause problems. It would be very difficult to report on the performance of any third party against the commission’s objectives. There is no single function carried out in isolation that can achieve the objectives, so it would be impossible to measure the impact of any one organisation on the commission’s objectives.
The commission may include similar details in fulfilling the existing requirements to report on all its business activities and the extent to which they were contracted out. Clearly, if a large number of functions were contracted to a single organisation, it would be possible to comment on the contribution made by that organisation as part of the overall reporting process.

Tim Boswell: Will the Minister comment on a hypothetical circumstance where the performance of the organisation to which the work was contracted out changed? It might start very well and then deteriorate for reasons for which it may not be entirely blameworthy. If that were to happen, it would seem entirely reasonable for the commission to draw the public’s attention to it.

James Plaskitt: The commission may want to do so. More importantly, I hope that it would take action to correct the problem. We will ensure that contracts are sufficiently tightly and rigorously drawn. The commission has the right to step quickly into a situation like that and arrest the problem. That is the most important thing to achieve in those circumstances.
That brings me lastly to amendment to No. 13, which would place an additional statutory requirement for the annual report to be debated once laid in Parliament. Of course, we want to ensure that there is proper parliamentary scrutiny. However, we find it difficult to understand what the amendment would add; it would certainly be very unusual for a non-departmental public body’s annual report to be debated in Parliament as a matter of course. I think there will continue to be such interest in how CMEC performs right across the House that we can guarantee that it will remain under very close parliamentary scrutiny. That will quite conceivably be on the Floor of the House, certainly in Adjournment debates and most certainly by the work of the Select Committee. There will be such interest that there will be no requirement to force a debate as it will come about anyway. To accept the amendment would take the commission right out of line with any other non-departmental public body for which there is not the requirement to hold a compulsory debate. There is also the slight problem that if it happens just once, hon. Members may find their applications for debates refused because they will be referred to the annual debate. Parliament may want to debate that more than once a year.

Andrew Selous: I am disappointed that the Minister does not like amendment No. 13. Will he give the Committee some assurance that Department for Work and Pensions Ministers will make a regular path to the door of the Leader of the House to keep this subject well to the fore so that it is debated in the Chamber? There was a CSA debate in Westminster Hall this morning. That is all well and good, but it rather made by point. I want to see these matters debated in the Chamber so that everyone can take part.

James Plaskitt: I shall repeat what I said before: I do not think that I or any Minister will have to force the pace. There is already a quite sufficient body of interest and concern among hon. Members on behalf of their constituents, and the whole matter will be kept under close scrutiny anyway at Question Time and through any other avenue of debate and means open through the usual channels. I do not think that there will be any shortage of parliamentary scrutiny of the process, and I welcome the fact that there will be such detailed scrutiny, which is right and proper.

Mark Harper: The particular significance of my hon. Friend’s point is that, while we hope that things will go well, they may not, and a debate on a motion on the Floor of the House of Commons has the advantage of providing an opportunity for Members to vote on the motion and express a view on the performance of the agency. Other forms of debate—in Westminster Hall, for example, on a motion for the Adjournment—do not, except in extreme situations of adjourning the House, afford hon. Members that opportunity.

James Plaskitt: I do not think that I would devalue those other means as the hon. Gentleman suggests. They are extremely important, and I know that I and all my ministerial colleagues in the Department take very seriously any form of accountability, whether we are made accountable in Select Committees, Adjournment debates or elsewhere. The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire has not managed to persuade me that there is a need for the provision. It is not that I do not like it, as he puts it. I just think that it is not necessary to bring about the parliamentary scrutiny that he and I want. I hope that the amendment will not be pressed to a vote.

Paul Rowen: I am grateful for what the Minister has said. In view of most of his comments, we are happy to withdraw the amendment. We would, however, like to press amendment No. 82, which deals with complaints and complaint handling, to a vote.

David Taylor: I now call Mr. Selous to move amendment No. 9 formally.

Andrew Selous: I want to move amendment No. 9 formally, but am I able to reply to the debate, Mr. Taylor?

David Taylor: No.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 9, in clause 9, page 4, line 32, at end insert—
‘(e) the number of children who live apart from one or both of their parents who are eligible for child maintenance under the Child Support Act 1991;
(f) the proportion of those children for whom child maintenance has been paid in the previous year;
(g) the type of arrangement—whether voluntary or under the statutory scheme;
(h) where child maintenance has been paid, details of the amount; the frequency of payment; whether paid in full or in part; and whether paid on time.’.—[Andrew Selous.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 10.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 12, in clause 9, page 4, line 32, at end insert—
‘(e) information concerning the historic debt to be collected by the Commission, including—
(i) the total amount of historic debt;
(ii) the numbers of individual debtors;
(iii) the amounts of debt owed, broken down by bands;
(iv) the steps taken to recover that debt, including the budget and staffing resources devoted to this activity; and
(v) the amount of debt considered uncollectable, broken down by the reasons why.’.—[Andrew Selous.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 11.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 82, in clause 9, page 4, line 32, at end insert—
‘(d) details of any complaints received and how these complaints were handled.’.—[Danny Alexander.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 11.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Andrew Selous: I must have misread the way in which the debate was going, because I thought that I would have the opportunity to respond to the earlier debate, given that amendment No. 10 was the lead amendment.
As we are now having a stand part debate, I want to refer to a number of points raised by the Minister in his summing up. I am grateful for the assurance that quarterly performance statistics will be provided. That is essential because such statistics provide important and detailed data on the performance of the CSA at the moment, and CMEC in the future.
I also felt reassured when the Minister said that debt that was more than six years old would remain a debt or a liability, and could be pursued on behalf of parents with care from non-resident parents. However, I was disappointed that the Minister did not agree to amendment No. 9. I believe that clause 9(3)(a) to (d), which we are putting into law, is much too high-level and much too broad-brush. It does not reach down to the nuts and bolts of the day-to-day operation of the CSA. I am particularly disappointed, because we are setting up a non-departmental public body, which, as the Minister said at the start of our third sitting, is deliberately going to be at arm’s length from the Department. I wonder whether this is our last chance as parliamentarians to have an influence on exactly what CMEC will and will not put into the public domain.
I was also extremely concerned by the Minister’s response, when he said that the information required by the amendments “may not be available”—I think that those were his exact words. Amendment No. 9, on which we just voted, contains fairly basic, straightforward stuff:
“the number of children who are ... eligible for child maintenance”;
“the proportion of those children for whom child maintenance has been paid”;
“the type of arrangement—whether voluntary or under the statutory scheme”;
and,
“where child maintenance has been paid, details of the amount; the frequency”.
Frankly, if that sort of information may not be available, my concerns over the adequacy of the computer system are escalating rather than decreasing.
We have tabled a new clause on the computer systems, which we will debate towards the end of our time in Committee. Given the litany of failures on computer matters within the CSA, and, indeed, across Government, which goes back some time, the Minister’s remark worries me very much. I am grateful, Mr. Taylor, for the opportunity to make those brief further remarks on clause 9.

James Plaskitt: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is at least reassured on some of my early points. We now return to the nub of his disagreement with clause 9. His argument is, in essence, that it is too broadly drawn; it is too “broad-brush”, as he put it. I say to him again that the clause goes much further in specifying what we want the annual report to cover than is the case for reports published by any other non-departmental public body. I hope that it will reassure him that with the stipulation in clause 9 and the overriding objectives set for the commission in earlier clauses, the annual report is quite a testing requirement and will oblige the commission to report in detail.
The commission will not be able to satisfy the requirements under the four additional specifications, unless it provides a fair amount of detail. I discourage him from putting the detailed requirements in the Bill, as he has attempted to do, because we have already gone much further. Taking the four additional requirements against the general requirement and the objectives that have been set down, I am confident that the annual report will be a thorough document, giving us a very good reading of how the commission is performing. I also believe that perfectly adequate requirements are in place for further parliamentary scrutiny of the annual report and further opportunities to ask additional questions of the commission and Ministers. I hope, therefore, that the clause will be accepted to stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10

Directions and guidance

Danny Alexander: I beg to move amendment No. 63, in clause 10, page 5, line 8, at end insert ‘and laid before Parliament’.
It is a pleasure, Mr. Taylor, to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, but by no means the last—although it will be the last time for several months.
I refer to what the Minister said in his closing remarks on clause 9, which is about parliamentary accountability. A feature of the Committee’s proceedings has been that a number of amendments have been tabled seeking to strengthen parliamentary accountability, in recognition of the fact that the new body is to be further removed from Parliament than the Child Support Agency.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale tabled an amendment that would have required parliamentary approval for the appointment of the chair of the commission, and further amendments were tabled on the subject of Parliament debating the annual report. I am sad to say that a feature of the Government’s response so far has been that, despite the rhetoric of the new Prime Minister about strengthening the role of Parliament and parliamentary accountability, Ministers have chosen to reject the amendments. I hope that we will see a change in that pattern in relation to this amendment, and I look to the Minister for a response.
Clause 10 relates to the link that will continue to exist between the will of the Secretary of State and the activities of the commission, an arm’s length body or a non-departmental public body. The clause quite rightly gives the Secretary of State the power to provide guidance on how the commission should carry out its work, which is not binding, and to issue directions, which are binding as I understand it. In other words, he may give instructions that the commission will have no option but to follow. It is right and proper that he should have those powers because, although it is at arm’s length, the new body is still a Government one.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that, when the Secretary of State chooses to exercise the powers, giving guidance or directions to the new body, Parliament should be made aware that he has done so. That relates to several broader matters. It would ensure that the lines of accountability between the Secretary of State and the commission are clear and can be seen clearly. A degree of openness in the relationship would be healthy—many hon. Members are still supporters of the Freedom of Information Act 2000; I certainly am—as it would allow ongoing scrutiny of the exercise of those functions.
The risk, when governmental functions are transferred to arm’s length bodies, is that a mechanism may come about that detaches responsibility somewhat—it is not the Minister’s fault; it is the commission’s. The commission is being given a degree of responsibility and, therefore, it must accept that blame sometimes comes with that.
Ultimately, the commission must be answerable both to Parliament and to the Secretary of State. If that information were laid before Parliament, it would aid the public’s and Parliament’s understanding of the way in which the Secretary of State is exercising his functions in relation to guiding and directing the activity of the commission. I suspect that if this were a private organisation, we would be hearing shouts from defenders of commercial confidentiality on not putting the information before Parliament. However, the body will be a public one, not a private one, so I do not see that that objection should apply. The Minister may wish to respond that at least some of the directions may apply to particular cases and that there may therefore be data protection reasons for objecting to the amendment.
Perhaps the Minister will give a view on how he expects the powers to be used in practice. One suspects that the vast majority of the guidance will be general guidance about the policies and practices of the organisation, and that directions may relate to specific matters. Perhaps they will relate to legislation or to issues that have become live in the public domain, when the Minister sees fit to act in order to show that something has been done or to make a change that is required by public opinion or other reasons. In all those cases, I see no reason why the information should not be made available to Parliament as a matter of course. With those brief words, I hope that the Minister will accept those arguments and see fit to welcome and adopt the amendment.

Tim Boswell: I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Taylor. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey clearly identified that the clause is about what might be termed the private dialogue that Ministers and the Secretary of State will have with the chairman, the chief executive and the officials of the new commission. That is a relationship with which I have had some experience, and if I may use the occasion of the amendment to speak on one or two related points as they occur to me, that might be helpful, although I shall not do so at great length.
My first point is one that the Minister has made a number of times. It is inconceivable that the affairs of the new commission will wither and cease to be of interest in this place—clearly, they will not. I can tell the Minister, if he is not already painfully aware of it, that however much he may put the commission’s functions at arm’s length and however much he may distance himself and say, “This is a purely administrative battle,” all the dirt will land on his desk, even if he does not deserve it. In that sense, I sympathise with him—it is difficult to do that for Ministers, but I shall. To put it in English, our constituents have suffered from failures with the CSA, and if CMEC were to be as unsuccessful, we would all be on his back to do something about it.
There is no sense, except a purely formal one, in which Ministers absolve themselves of their responsibility by seeking to create some clear space. On the other hand, if they are to do things sensibly, they would want to give a measured management freedom. The Minister has referred to that a number of times. He has sought to resist our amendments when we have apparently, if only for debate, sought to fetter the discretion of the commission or to make it too prescriptive.
In relation to the new Government, which has been in place for some three weeks, my impressions are that in rhetoric at least, some healthy changes are taking place. We seem to be having a retreat from targets, for example in local government, which I think is quite helpful. I do not believe that people respond best to being ordered, pushed around or told precisely what to do. If people have a clear remit because the objectives are clear, and a degree of management discretion to effect it, the last thing that people want—and the last thing that they deserve—is Ministers digging them up by the roots every ten minutes and saying, “Why didn’t you do this or otherwise?”
Without respect to party or individuals, the Committee will know that that is a relationship or a set of constraints that has shot through the whole process of government ever since the emergence of the concept of next steps agencies and the separate evolution of non-departmental public bodies, which have been in place for almost a generation. One has to go back to Nye Bevan, to the days when he said that a dropped bed-pan would be a matter for debate in the House of Commons. We have rightly moved on from that, but the Minister therefore owes the Committee some indication of his thoughts on guidance and directions, and how he wants to conduct the relationship.
I shall add a coda before I sit down. My remarks could be construed as being rather sinister. They could almost imply, for example, that the relationship had broken down quite badly and that Ministers, having lost confidence in the body, were issuing instructions to it, rather in the way that a permanent secretary can distance himself from ministerial decisions by writing a permanent secretary minute saying, “Not mine”, although he would not be so impertinent as to say so. Ministers are accountable here, so, quite rightly, they can take decisions against official advice. They do that from time to time, and sometimes they are right to do so, but it is not helpful if it happens all the time.
In the spirit of my comments on targeting, I should like the Minister to reflect on the possibility of issuing annual guidance, which he may be minded to do, or, in the context of a comprehensive spending review, to have a dialogue that is enshrined in a formal letter and could well be published. He should tell us. I have experience of running the two most expensive non-departmental public bodies, in the shape of the Higher Education Funding Council and the then Further Education Funding Council. My role was to write them an annual remit letter in the context of their funding arrangements and then to let them get on with it. Both formally and in practice, that is the wisest course of action.
In the transition, there is a danger that Ministers might become too prescriptive, as happened when the Further Education Funding Council became the Learning and Skills Council. I well remember a remit letter from the early days of the LSC that listed 76 urgent requirements. The Committee needs to reflect on that for only a moment. If I were to say to my secretary that there were 76 urgent pieces of work for her to do, she would tell me where to put them. The only purpose of specifying 76 requirements is to enable one to take a forensic approach and say, “You left out that one. You failed on that.” That does not lead to a healthy relationship.
I say to the Minister that we need to get a flavour of what guidance there will be, whether it will be given regularly and the circumstances in which Ministers might feel that it is appropriate. Above all, we need to know whether the directions will reflect a particular need of Ministers, some points that they think particularly important or something that has gone wrong that they wish to redress.
I promised a quick conclusion and I shall deliver one. I hope that Ministers and the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, who moved the amendment, will not take it amiss when I say that the prescriptions in the clause and the amendment slightly miss the point. Whatever is specified in private and said, or not said, in public, it is important that Ministers should have a dialogue with their non-departmental public body that is not based on instruction, but that takes the form of a regular conversation. There needs to be a degree of confidence, dare I say, that the chairman and chief executive are encouraged to come in and talk, and that Ministers will not make accusatory inquiries and perform press release-type stunts, but will say, “Have you thought about this?” and “How are you getting on with that?” A wise Minister does that all the time and somehow contrives to do it without interfering. It is a delicate relationship.
My final point concerns information. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire talked about the need for quarterly reporting. As a Minister, the only time when I ever had such difficulty and was not happy with the chief executive in question was when something was bounced on me. We had an administrative problem and, although it was on nothing like the scale of those of the CSA, I did not enjoy having 35,000 unpaid student loans on Christmas eve. Indeed, I even threatened to go to Glasgow to sign a few cheques to get something done about it. It could all have been averted if we had had enough notice of the problem. We would have put additional staff in a couple of months earlier and found people in the Department to deal with it.
In all seriousness, Ministers will need to give regard, as I am sure they will wish to, to the nature of their private dialogue with such organisations. That is a perfectly proper thing to do—it is not subverting the will of Parliament. Equally, they need to tell us here and now, in response to the amendment, on which subjects they propose to give guidance and direction, in what circumstances, how frequently and to what effect. If the Minister will reflect on that, it would be helpful.

Andrew Selous: It was remiss of me, Mr. Taylor, not formally to welcome you to the Chair when I spoke earlier, but I do so now warmly. I have had the pleasure of serving under your chairmanship before, and I know that you will be fair and allow the most robust scrutiny, so long as it remains in order.
I have sympathy with amendment No. 63, and I agree with the remarks of the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey. It is a short amendment to what seems to be a relatively brief and innocuous clause, but our debate shows that within even the most anodyne clauses deeper and more significant issues can lie, as was ably illustrated by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry.
During our third sitting, the Minister said about CMEC that
“It will operate at arm’s length from Ministers and the Department”,
and a little later, he said that the
“autonomy that goes with a non-departmental body is crucial”.——[Official Report, Child Maintenance and Other Payments Public Bill Committee, 19 July 2007; c. 90.]
We understand the Department’s reasoning for that, given what has happened up to this point, but when we come to clause 10, it will raise questions as to where the balance lies, as my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry and the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey have pointed out. It would be good to get a feeling on what the Minister thinks of the in-extremis powers that he is giving himself and the Secretary of State as a reserve. How frequently, if at all, does he imagine them being put into action?
I think the points on transparency were well made, and they have been made frequently today in respect of other amendments. My hon. Friend certainly did the Committee a service when he spoke of the role of targets in general, and he was absolutely right to do so. During my relatively brief six years in the House, I have often had the sense that public servants, both local and national, spend more time looking up towards Whitehall targets than looking at—I do not mean looking down on—customers, people, local residents, people of this country and those whom they serve. The intention is that targets will achieve good delivery. We all understand that, but the reality is often not what Ministers intend.
I am interested in the distinction between guidance and general or specific directions. I do not know about the experience of other hon. Members, but in my constituency guidance in the education system seems to have the status of holy writ to teachers. It seems that guidance is put on a pedestal and no one dare do anything else. I know that is not the case legally, and the helpful explanatory notes to the Bill point out that the commission should “have regard” to guidance but that it must “comply” with directions, as provided for under subsection (2).

David Taylor: Order. I am conscious of the generous remarks that the hon. Gentleman made a moment or two ago. However, the amendment is narrow—it relates only to line 8—and his comments are developing into a stand part contribution.

Andrew Selous: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Taylor. It was certainly not my intention to start a stand part debate. If I strayed a little wide, I shall redirect myself to amendment No. 63. The central question is, why should there be secrecy? Why should these matters, this guidance and these directions not be made public? I cannot think of a good reason. As was said earlier, the commission is not a private organisation. In the spirit of openness and transparency that has been urged on the Minister so frequently in the course of our deliberations, I hope that he will look favourably on the amendment.

James Plaskitt: I am grateful to the hon. Members for Daventry and for South-West Bedfordshire for their contribution to the debate prompted by the amendment. I am particularly grateful to the hon. Member for Daventry for having shared his experience with the Committee. We all appreciate having had the advantage of witnessing his graceful glide-path, to which he referred this morning, and I hope that it will result in a smooth landing for him.
The hon. Members for Daventry and for South-West Bedfordshire both want me to expand a little on the use of guidance and directions, but the hon. Member for Daventry has the answer to his own question. As he has said, there will have to be well-established dialogue between Ministers and the senior staff of the commission. Of course, that is right. I suspect that out of that will come the judgment as to how much guidance is needed—there might well be more of it at the onset of the commission than there is later, although I shall not try to specify how much, because it will rightly come out of that dialogue. We anticipate using directions only in emergencies.
The debate was prompted by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, who moved the amendment, and I intend to smile on him—a bit. Because it is a non-departmental public body, ultimate accountability for the commission’s performance and actions remains with the Secretary of State, and supervision for direction and guidance is therefore provided for in this clause. It is not unusual to have such provisions in the founding legislation of non-departmental public bodies, and similar legislation can be found in the Environment Act 1995 and the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.
The power of direction will be used only in exceptional and time-critical circumstances—states of crisis such as that which occurred in 1999 when the Passport Agency failed to process applications within agreed deadlines. The agency agreed a recovery plan with Ministers, who in turn authorised the recruitment of additional staff. Ministers also facilitated arrangements for emergency extensions of passports at post offices, and reversed a decision taken by the agency to reduce security checks.
In less time-critical situations, the Secretary of State can use the power of guidance to assist the commission. Unlike the power of direction, under which the Secretary of State’s instructions must be followed by the commission, any guidance, notwithstanding what has been said in the course of debate, provided by the commission must be taken into account, but it does not have to be followed to the letter in every case. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs uses that power and provides guidance to the Environment Agency on, for example, the collection of waste in ways designed to protect human health. However, it is for the Environment Agency to determine how it exercises that function and to ensure that the power of guidance does not impede its ability to use its judgment in particular cases.
The amendment would require that any guidance or directions provided to the commission should be laid down in Parliament. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s desire to ensure even greater openness with regard to the operation of the commission and agree with him about that. I must highlight the fact that we see a distinction between the power of direction and that of guidance. The provision to give guidance to a non-departmental public body is nothing exceptional. It would be unusual to publish such guidance and therefore unnecessary—indeed, inappropriate—to lay guidance notes before Parliament. However, with regard to the Secretary of State providing direction to the commission, I am happy to give further consideration to the amendment.
Over the summer, I want to look at other examples of how similar powers are used across the Government, and specifically at whether such directions are laid before the House. I will return to the matter once I have considered it further. I want to give positive consideration to the idea that the hon. Gentleman has put before us in respective directions in light of the amendment.

Tim Boswell: I always respect a Minister who listens to the argument and reflects on it. That is hugely helpful to the Committee.
While we are bagging at least one assurance that the Minister will look at something, I have one further point. If he is in formal correspondence with the commission, perhaps on an annual basis or in the context of its annual report or the financial settlement, will he reflect on whether, either as a matter of practice or by using guidance in some other way, he might consider the possibility of publishing that kind of dialogue? I fully understand that if he has some internal guidance—something that perhaps reflects operational factors, starting factors or otherwise—that he does not wish to disclose. There may be cases, matters of staffing and otherwise, in which that might be inappropriate.
It might be good practice for the Minister to consider some sort of an annual “remit” letter—I use the word loosely—so that we had some context in which to frame our consideration of the relationship and the continuing work of CMEC.

James Plaskitt: It may be appropriate to consider the key issues that could be raised in the context of the annual report. I will take that away and look at it over the summer together with the suggestion to adopt what has been proposed in respect of laying directions before Parliament. At this stage, I ask the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey to withdraw his amendment, on the understanding that I will give it serious further consideration and come back to the Committee in the future.

Danny Alexander: I am grateful to the Minister for both the content and the spirit in which he delivered his remarks to the Committee. I welcome his commitment to give further consideration to directions, and I understand what he is saying about guidance. If he is in a reflective mood, perhaps he will consider whether, in the run of things although not necessarily in every case, there are ways in which such guidance could be put in the public domain that fall short of laying it before Parliament.
For example, is it a matter that could be published on the website of the Department for Work and Pensions or of CMEC? I suppose that the commissioner will have his own plans for making such documentation open to the public short of laying it before Parliament. I well understand that distinction. I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks, and I look forward to hearing what he comes back with after the recess.

Tim Boswell: Before we leave the matter, I briefly invite the Minister to consider a point that I suspect will be put to him. There might be certain cases in which direction is not appropriate for publication on the grounds of confidentiality or, in extreme cases, national security. I would not expect him to produce that, but he may need to produce some kind of rubric that will cover him in those very narrow cases.

Danny Alexander: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chairman, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the amendment proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question agreed to.

Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11

Supplementary provisions

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill

Andrew Selous: This being a clause stand part debate, we can range reasonably widely round it, although I am conscious of your guidance in our last debate.
On the face of it, clause 11 looks like another short, innocuous clause that introduces supplementary provisions and does not warrant too much attention, as it contains no great issues. Subsection (1) mentions the definition of “child”. Further on, clause 37 deals with the meaning of “child”. Just for wider understanding, beyond this Committee—perhaps even for Committee members—I would be grateful if the Minister assured the Committee that the meaning of “child” in clause 11 is the same as that in clause 37, which in general terms refers to children under 16 or children under 20 who are in full-time education or other circumstances that meet with the conditions prescribed in clause 37(1)(b).
Subsection (2) contains the much wider issue of share of care, which I am sensing, increasingly strongly, is a large issue that is not sufficiently addressed in the Bill. It says:
“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about when a child is, or is not, to be regarded for the purposes of this Part as living apart from a parent.”
To put it on the record, I understand that under the current definition of what we are talking about, children living apart from one of their parents spend more than 260 nights away from their other parent’s home. If I have understood that correctly, a contention exists between parents on occasions in respect of shared care arrangements when the non-resident parent has their child for approaching 104 or more nights. Understandably, the parent with care might say, “No, you’re not having our children for more than 104 nights, because I don’t want to lose any money.” I have a lot of sympathy with that. I understand the concern of the parent with care about a possible reduction in her maintenance as a result of the child spending 104 nights or more with their father. That is a source of great concern and contention, and it comes back to the general issue, which we discussed in respect of clause 2, about the welfare of the child.

Tim Boswell: I have two quick comments on which I would value my hon. Friend’s opinion. First, 104 days neatly coincides with weekends, which must be a typical pattern of shared care. Secondly, the overheads continue for somebody who loses only a few nights of care. That must be a factor in their view of whether the arrangement is equitable.

Andrew Selous: As always, the Committee is indebted to my hon. Friend for his wise remarks. On his first point, he is right: 104 days is 52 weekends of two nights. The question of school holidays also comes into that. Parents might have their child every weekend during term time, but they might want them for a bit longer over the summer holiday or the Christmas holiday. Are the maintenance calculations then brought into question because of that?
In respect of my hon. Friend’s second point, the costs of maintaining a certain size of house to accommodate a child during a whole year—even though they are not there every night—are fixed and utilities and rent for a house large enough to have the appropriate number of bedrooms are expensive.
In respect of my hon. Friend’s second point, the costs of maintaining a certain size of house to accommodate a child during a whole year—even though the child is not there each night—are fixed. Utilities and rent for a house large enough to have the appropriate number of bedrooms are expensive. Looking at matters the other way round brings me neatly to the need to recognise the contribution that non-resident parents often make in respect of meals, food and clothes, even though their child is classed as living away from them as parents. The huge concern felt about that by many parents—mainly, but not exclusively, fathers—is justified.
The Bill’s aspiration in clause 2(2)(a) is to cover as many children as possible of divorced or separated parents. Incidentally, the phrase “children of divorced or separated parents” is greatly preferred by many non-resident parents, who deeply resent the term that we have slipped into using, because it is quick and easy. We have to be careful to think of the effect that anachronisms and terms have on people who care deeply for their children and who are greatly involved in their lives. Given that we are discussing a new start or new organisation, perhaps CMEC will think about using new phraseology. It is not really a matter for the Minister to give a detailed response to now, but perhaps it will be considered in the future.
Under clause 2(2)(a), the overriding objective that relates to clause 11 is for CMEC to encourage and support the making and keeping by parents of appropriate voluntary arrangements for their children. The Minister hopes that the definition in clause 11(2) will not have to apply to the greatest number of children. In his ideal world, it would not apply to any children, because the arrangements would be voluntary and therefore it would not be the business of the state, CMEC or any organ of government to look at the regulation and see how many nights here and how many nights there. Parents will have the flexibility to make their own arrangements to have a certain amount of money flowing forward, and the children can come and go without financial consequences. I greatly welcome that aspect of the Bill. It is excellent that more parents will not have to go through nasty weekly conundrums in respect of the split.
I do not expect the Minister to have fully worked out answers now, but the issue is serious. He has said that he will go away and consider a specific amendment from the previous group that we considered. In all seriousness, I say to him that the matter is of justified and genuine concern. It can be dealt with slightly more equitably than it is at present without requiring the him to take sides between parents with care and non-resident parents. I should be grateful if he could give us clues about his thinking or that of the Department and say whether he is prepared to have the period of summer reflection that he has assured us he will embark on.

Michael Weir: May I add my words of welcome to you, Mr. Taylor? I wish to follow on from what was said by the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire. He referred to the definition of a child under the Child Support Act 1991, to which clause 11 refers. He said that a child was someone under the age of 16 or under the age of 20 in full-time education. I draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that that is not quite correct under Scots law. Under section 1 of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985, both parents can be obliged to pay aliment to a child in full-time education to the age of 25, and I will move an amendment to clause 37 in that respect. Will the Minister confirm whether clause 11 refers to the Child Support Act 1991? Presumably it will be referred to as amended, if I am successful in my later efforts on clause 37.

James Plaskitt: As the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire has reminded us, shared care is a vexed area. As he has recognised, Ministers do not want to get drawn into such an area. They do not want to become involved in the discussion or debates that separating parents might have in respect of arrangements over shared care.
If the hon. Gentleman has studied the White Paper and all the responses from stakeholders and consultees—I am sure that he has—he will know that there was no consensus over the sort of change that should be made. In such circumstances, we were right to conclude that we should leave the existing arrangements for shared care provision within the maintenance calculations.

Andrew Selous: The Minister has said that it is not an area that he wishes to get involved in. However, there is currently huge ministerial involvement, because a set of regulations exist that massively affect that area.

James Plaskitt: The hon. Gentleman was tempting me to get even further involved than I am. Drawing on the years of experience that we have on this matter, we concluded that the current formula has been reasonably well road-tested and is reasonably effective. There was no consensus in our consultation to do anything different or anything other than the arrangements that already exist. That is why it is sensible to carry over those arrangements into CMEC.
Clause 11(1) sets out that the definition of child
“has the same meaning as in the Child Support Act 1991”
and makes provision for the Secretary of State to regulate when a child is to be regarded as living apart from the parent. The definition of a child in the Child Support Act 1991 is to be amended by clause 37. Following the amendment, a child will be defined as a person who is under the age of 16, or under the age of 20 under certain conditions. Clause 11 ensures that that meaning is used by the commission not only in the statutory maintenance service, but in information and support services and throughout the child maintenance system. In Scotland, the definition of a child is different, and children have different rights.
Clause 11(2), which was the subject of the debate, refers to children who live apart from one or both parents. To ensure that there is no confusion over the scope of the objective and the circumstances that it is intended to cover, clause 11 gives the Secretary of State the power to provide in regulation when a child is to be regarded
“as living apart from a parent.”
That power is intended to be used in circumstances in which it might be argued that a child lived with both parents, in whatever proportion, and therefore did not fall under the commission’s main objective because that child would not be living apart from one or both parents. The statutory maintenance service has robust and clear procedures that allow the maintenance service to apply clear and consistent rules when assessing a claim, even if there are complex family arrangements such as those that he has referred to.
When the commission exercises other functions, such as the promotion of parental responsibility and the provision of information and guidance, the measure will ensure that that is not restricted in terms of who is considered to be a child living apart from one or both parents.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12

Transfer of child support functions

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Danny Alexander: I have a few brief questions to put to the Minister. Because clause 12 relates to the transfer of functions from the Child Support Act 1991, and therefore, in many cases, effectively from the CSA to CMEC, this is a good opportunity to ask some questions about the nature of, and planning for, the transition between the two organisations, although there may be further opportunities to raise such issues.
The clause cuts to the heart of questions about the administration of the transition. It will transfer a substantial number of functions under the 1991 Act to CMEC, except those listed in subsection (2)—the exceptions are dealt with clearly in the explanatory notes. I note in passing that the Work and Pensions Committee, in a report in March this year, stated:
“The CSA has an unfavourable history regarding transition between systems.”
If transitions from the old to the new within the CSA have proved to be such a problem, what consideration has the Minister given to the framing of the clause to deal with the potential pitfalls in transferring functions from the CSA to the new body? In his report, Sir David Henshaw stated:
“I believe there are strong reasons to justify making a clean break from the current Agency and creating a new body with a mandate to deliver a ‘fresh start’ for child support. This body should be separate from the task of dealing with legacy issues from the current system, including the management of existing debt.”
I am probing the Minister to go a little further on the matter. Perhaps he has not had an opportunity so far in the Committee to explain why the Government have chosen not to follow up that recommendation to keep the functions separate and to use the CSA to wind up historic debt and so on and to deal with other issues under the old system. That would allow CMEC to make a fresh start with future applications.
There is a question of the extent to which the creation of CMEC is delivering the clean break that Henshaw recommended and which the Committee wants to see. Two members of the Select Committee are here: the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare and the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire. Although one must remain silent, we hope to hear from the other in our debates. As they will remember, in its evidence to the Committee, One Parent Families stated that
“it would appear that the CSA (its staff and computer system) will simply be re-branded as C-MEC from 2008 onwards.”
Natascha Engel (North-East Derbyshire) (Lab) indicated dissent.

Danny Alexander: The hon. Lady shakes her head: I am sorry that we shall not be hearing from her any more.
The question is that if the previous functions under the 1991 Act are to be transferred nem. con., with the exceptions of the six listed items in subsection (2), to what extent is the measure really a clean break? That is open to question. I invite the Minister to explain how he sees the issue. The Select Committee also expressed concern that CMEC will run three different systems in parallel for a time. Again, that seems not to represent the clean break proposed by Henshaw.
In that context, it is worth referring briefly to the issue of public confusion and misunderstanding about what is happening. CMEC will take over roles from the previous system. There has been talk in the press of the abolition of the CSA and a clean break, which has rightly reflected the Government’s own line on the matter, but it has given rise to a great deal of confusion in the general public and among the base of people who make use of the CSA and who may in future make use of CMEC.
Simply lumping everything in with the new agency is perhaps not the best way to make things clear. I hope, therefore, that as well as the points that the Minister will undoubtedly wish to make, he will also respond to the important issues of the public’s understanding of what is going on and whether the Bill really is the fundamental change that my party wishes to see.

Mark Harper: I have a couple of brief points to make. On the point that the hon. Gentleman has just raised, when reviewing Sir David Henshaw’s report I looked at some of the work on transition between organisations. I would appreciate it if the Minister outlined the thinking within the Department about how the transition from the existing organisation to the new one might be managed. Many hon. Members, including the Minister and his colleagues, talk about a clean break. Sir David’s report said that there are a number of successful business models in the private sector for making a success of a clean break and on how to deal with a new business, a new model and the old arrangements. A key lesson from successful operations of that type was that the two different activities require different skills, organisational cultures and performance management.
As the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey said, we have not heard a great deal about how transferring all of the functions and all of the people, as proposed by the next clause, will create a new organisation with a new mindset, a new culture, and—most importantly for the outside world—a new image. By that I do not mean just a new brand or identity, but a difference in performance that people can see as a real change. Persuading people that there has been a real change and a break with the past when they see effectively the same processes, the same people and very little difference, is going to be quite difficult.
It will be encouraging for the Committee if the Minister outlines some of the thinking in the Department because the commission will have to hit the ground running. If that culture change does not succeed right at the beginning, I am afraid that it will be too late. If the new organisation starts working without successfully doing that, it will not be possible to do it later. Will the Minister run through that for the benefit of the Committee?

James Plaskitt: I shall begin with the points raised by the hon. Member for Forest of Dean and work back to the others. In a sense, there are real problems with what he is asking. On the one hand he wants to ensure a clean break and is raising questions about whether that can be achieved by transferring functions. The implication, as I hear it, is that he wants to achieve a clean break by completely bringing all the functions of the CSA to a full stop somehow, as if it were possible to switch off one system, pack it up, put it away and then switch on another one and start again with something new. With respect to him, that cannot be done because there are at least 650,000 children involved for whom the most critical thing is that we ensure an uninterrupted and steady flow of maintenance. It is therefore extremely important to have as smooth as possible a glide path, if I might use the phrase again, from the existing cases within the agency into the new commission. Let me put it this way: despite all the problems that we are familiar with in the context of the agency, I would hope that those parents for whom the system currently works—and there are many for whom it does work—will not notice the difference. It is important that smoothly running flows of child maintenance should continue. For that reason, it is not possible simply to switch off one agency and start another. The carry-over from one to the other is critical.

Mark Harper: For the avoidance of doubt, I was not suggesting that. That is not what is happening; the commission is going to pick up the responsibility for those cases that do work. However, given that we know that the CSA has not been the most successful of organisations, how can we be sure that we are going to get a successful commission that works across the piece both for its new customers and for those who have not been very well treated, as well as for collecting the historical debt?

James Plaskitt: Remember that it will not happen all in one big bang. As we set out in the White Paper, it will take a number of years to achieve the transition from the state that things are in now to the state in which the commission is fully up and running and is responsible for every aspect of child maintenance. It will be about 2013 before that happens, and we will apply the lessons learned from the CSA about the importance of taking time to get a complex transition such as this right. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey asked why we had not proceeded with David Henshaw’s recommendation to have, in effect, two bodies: a legacy body and a new commission. We thought carefully about that but did not accept it because we want to go down what we believe to be the more efficient route. It is our firm view that it is crucial to have a single controlling team overseeing all aspects of the legacy cases as well as the new ones. The process needs to be as seamless as possible for all the clients who are involved in it. I am sure that if we were to move to a two-body situation, that would add confusion for clients. In dealing with matters relating to their family, they might find themselves working with one organisation handling legacy cases while also having to have a relationship with another body dealing with subsequent cases. There are many complex cases, and that would not be a satisfactory state of affairs. For those reasons, it was much more sensible to go for a single body overseeing all the legacy work as well as the new cases.

Michael Weir: I understand the Minister’s position. However, given that at least two systems run side by side in the CSA, the unfairness felt by many parents will be made worse by the fact that there will be a third system in CMEC, that one organisation will be running all three, and that it will be several years before all cases get on to the new system. The public perception is that it is a new organisation with a new system. Many of us fear that the fact that there are three different systems will undermine that perception and might institutionalise in CMEC the problems that exist in the CSA.

James Plaskitt: I do not share that concern. There is a difference between a transition between institutions—such as moving from the agency to CMEC—which is what we are talking about, and a transition between formulae, which is what happened within the agency after the 2003 change. Those are not the same thing. In fact, the formula change that came in as a result of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000 has been widely accepted and is supported as being a clearer way of arriving at maintenance assessments than was the previous model.

Tim Boswell: Does the Minister agree that it will be important to give consideration to the right kind of communication to service users? It would be possible to drown them with too much information, or the wrong kind, or to stir up or alarm them unnecessarily about destabilising changes in the arrangements. He wants a seamless transition of institutions, which is sensible, but at the same time there will be words on the street and people will jump to conclusions. Will he think long and hard, in conjunction with the new management, to ensure that this is got right and explained both passively, on websites and so forth, and by active communication as well?

James Plaskitt: Yes, it has to be seamless for clients. That is the bottom line. We are trying to ensure that we are providing the best possible level of service to clients. The smooth transition from one service to the other is of critical importance and will, of course, inform us as we think about how we deal with the detail of the switch, over time, from agency to commission.

Danny Alexander: Hearing the Minister’s response to the intervention from the hon. Member for Angus led me to feel rather sorry for the staff of the CSA, about whom we will talk more under clause 13. However, it is appropriate to mention that, because we have already debated how staff numbers are dwindling. The Minister has answered that point—not to my satisfaction—but it now seems, from the way he did so, that staff in the same teams will, potentially, be dealing with three different systems for a while and there will still be a limited number of staff. That is a critical issue. What are the Minister’s intentions in terms of staff training, so that people can manage the substantially increased work that it sounds as though they will have? If necessary, is he prepared to make the resources available, so that the commission can employ the additional people that may be necessary to handle this transfer of functions?

James Plaskitt: The hon. Gentleman is taking me into the next debate. Suffice it to say it will be for the commission to devise the necessary transitional arrangements and for it, as I have said to him before, to determine the appropriate staffing level. There will be a constant dialogue on the resources between the commission’s senior officials and my Department. I think that his points are covered, but I will have more to say about staffing when we get to clause 13.
We are currently dealing with clause 12, which is a key element of the Bill and transfers to the commission those functions that the CSA currently carries out on behalf of the Secretary of State. For example, from the day appointed for the transfer, the commission will have responsibility for functions relating to the assessment, collection and enforcement of maintenance and to the duty to have regard to the welfare of the child. To be precise, the clause transfers the statutory child support functions as amended by the Bill. The transfer of staff and of property, rights and liabilities are provided for in subsequent clauses. The clause also gives effect to schedules 2 and 3. A few functions are excepted from transfer, as set out in subsection (2): some are retained solely by the Secretary of State, while others are both retained and transferred to the commission. I would like to mention each of those briefly and explain why they are excepted.
The right of appeal will be both conferred on the commission and retained by the Secretary of State. Although the commission will be a non-departmental public body, the policy that it operates is still ultimately the responsibility of the Secretary of State. It is therefore essential that the Secretary of State is still party to the proceedings for any appeal to the child support commissioner or a higher court, so that he can challenge legal interpretations that might undermine the policy.
Functions under section 46 of the 1991 Act relate to decisions on the amount of benefit a person is to receive. They do not relate to child support, and are therefore not transferred to the commission. The power to authorise a responsible person for the disclosure of information will be both conferred on the commission and retained by the Secretary of State. It is important that the Secretary of State retains that function, as he will continue to have some child support functions, such as making legislation, and his work may involve handling information. However, it will also be necessary for the function to be exercised by the commission, and paragraph 16 of schedule 7 makes the necessary amendment to ensure that that is so.
Legislative functions—that is, commencement powers, powers to make consequential amendments and the power to make secondary legislation under the 1991 Act—will also remain solely with the Secretary of State, because it is he or she who is ultimately responsible for legislation.
Finally, the provisions of the 1991 Act which provide for the Secretary of State for Scotland to pay travel expenses for a person attending proceedings before a child support commissioner in Scotland, will remain with that Secretary of State and will not be transferred. 
Establishing the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission is a key part of creating the new and radically different child maintenance system that we seek. Transferring the revised child support functions and duties to the commission simply allows us to establish it as a new independent body, specifically empowered and focused on promoting parental responsibility and choice and maximising maintenance arrangements.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Schedule 3

Transfer of child support functions

Danny Alexander: I beg to move amendment No. 58, in schedule 3, page 61, line 31, leave out paragraph 51.
This is a probing amendment. Paragraph 51 inserts a new section, 50A, which states:
“Any decision falling to be made under or by virtue of this Act by the Commission may be made, not only by a person authorised to exercise the Commission’s decision-making function, but also by a computer for whose operation such a person is responsible.”
I shall be interested to hear from the Minister whether it is a standard insertion in Acts that apply where computers may have a role in the administration of facilities. I make no apologies for repeating a point that was made earlier: the failure of computers to operate properly is one of the principal reasons why the CSA has such a bad reputation for making the wrong decisions in the wrong way at the wrong time and coming up with the wrong answer. The Minister admitted as much this morning when he referred to the internal audit of the CSA’s computer system, which he said had found 506 problems, which is not a small number, of which 219 have been fixed, leaving 287 remaining. He was frank about the problem, for which I commend him.
I assume that the Minister thinks that the problems will be fixed and that by the time CMEC comes into existence its computer system will be up and running and carrying out its functions. If it is not, the clause seems rather a sweeping measure, as it provides that a decision made by computer is to be regarded as a decision of the Secretary of State, or, in future, of the commission. The fact that it is a standard provision should in no way be taken to undermine my concerns about the idea, because unless the Minister can offer reassurances that the IT problems will be sorted out, the concept behind the proposal will not engender public confidence or the confidence of Members of Parliament in the operation of the new system.
The amendment provides a good opportunity for the Minister to say a little about the IT systems that CMEC intends to use, how the Government intend it to operate those systems and in what respect it will be different from how the CSA operated its IT systems, which the Minister admitted were beset by problems from the start.
The Government seem to have rejected the idea of a completely new IT system, so the proposed insertion in the schedule provides new responsibilities for those computers, if only legally, in name. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but at the same time it seems that CMEC will take over the legacy computer system of the CSA, albeit, one hopes, with the remaining 287 faults corrected. No doubt a number of new IT releases will be brought in to allow the new formula and the new rules set out in the Bill and in the regulations to be applied.
The report by the Work and Pensions Committee referred to the Child Support Agency’s record of serial IT failures and made the point that there is no evidence that a new system will be any more effective than the last two. The National Audit Office report on IT projects, “Delivering successful IT-enabled business change”, which I am sure is familiar to every member of the Committee, highlighted the complexities of the technical problems encountered when joining new and old systems in a variety of settings.
In responding to this brief debate, perhaps the Minister will explain his strategy for CMEC’s computer system. If it is a final decision, will he say why he has decided that the legacy computer system will be improved rather than having a new system? If that is the case, how does he intend to address the issues that were highlighted by the National Audit Office about the problems that exist in transitions between IT systems when patches and new releases have to be put in place? I would guess that in part the failure of that process in the past has been the cause of many of the problems that our constituents have experienced with the CSA. If a similar process is to be entered into again, what steps will the Minister take to ensure that it does not result in the same lack of effectiveness, lack of competence and extreme frustration and anger on the part of users of the system?

Mark Harper: The Committee will be pleased to hear that I will be brief. I am guessing that the Minister has a technical explanation for the proposal, but I hope that he will address the philosophical concept of computers being able to make decisions in the normal sense of the word, which relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey.
Computers can only implement instructions laid down for them by human beings. Given past problems, the responsibilities of some of the software providers and the implementation of the IT systems, it would be worth the Minister explaining whether this part of the schedule transfers any responsibility or if, as I suspect, it is just a technical measure to avoid a legal challenge made by people paying maintenance to any aspect of the process that involves an IT system. Perhaps he will explain the use of the words “decision” and “computer” in respect of the wider philosophical point.

James Plaskitt: I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s invitation to get philosophical, which I will do in a moment. I always welcome such invitations.
I want first to respond to the questions raised about IT systems by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, who reiterated some of the facts that I gave the Committee about the current situation. Of course we must get the IT right, as I said. 
The hon. Gentleman asked about future arrangements. CMEC will simply take over the existing CSA IT systems, bearing in mind that in the meantime it will have gone through the operational improvement plan enhancements, which I outlined in more detail this morning. The CSA’s existing IT contract will novate to CMEC, and from that starting position it will be open to the commission to determine its IT strategy, giving consideration to its objectives and available resources.
Paragraph 51 to schedule 3 inserts new paragraph 50A to the Child Support Act 1991. That simply replicates an existing provision under the Social Security Act 1998; and section 2 of that Act stipulates that decisions can be made or issued not just by a person acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, but also:
“by a computer for whose operation such an officer is responsible”.
That applies specifically to decisions made under, among others, the Child Support Acts of 1991 and 1995. The provision was originally introduced to allow automated decision making.
Social security and child support legislation states specifically that decisions must be made by particular officers or the Secretary of State, and, by extension, officials acting on his behalf. Technically, prior to the Social Security Act 1998, no decision could be made by a computer. At that time, many processes were automated; computers would take relevant data and often make complex calculations, for example, about the amount of benefit owing. However, because there needed to be a “decision maker”—that is a technical term—an officer would have to sign off a computer printout for each person affected. Section 2 of the 1998 Act did away with the need for that laborious and bureaucratic clerical process. The amendment would require that process to be reinstated for any decision taken by the commission. That would, no doubt, require changes to existing processes and IT, and would build back in inefficiencies that were removed in 1998.
I reassure the Committee, as the Committee was reassured in 1998, that staff rather than computers will be used to make decisions requiring the exercise of discretion or judgment. The decisions that will be automated are those that follow set rules and processes, such as for maintenance calculations. As the hon. Member for Forest of Dean asked me to do, I can reassure the Committee on the general notion of computers making decisions, which sends an Orwellian chill down the spine. We should think of it more as computers determining an outcome, based on criteria or rules established by the true decision makers—the commission’s personnel or, indeed, us. The software applies the law to the facts of the case. Computers are not exercising judgment between options, which is what most of us would normally understand by the concept of a decision. Furthermore, they are simply doing what they are told to. The ultimate responsibility remains, of course, with those who do the telling.
I hope that with those reassurances, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey will withdraw the amendment.

Danny Alexander: The Minister is clear on the philosophical and legal nature of the amendment. I do not want to venture into the metaphysical territory that he explored. It was enlightening, however, in that I had not been aware that social security legislation and other such legislation contained what might be described as a computer-says-no clause. That is a useful piece of information for an after-dinner speech, and it would go into my diary, if I kept one.

Andrew Selous: Will the Minister say something about the issue frequently complained about by our constituents—of computers churning out different assessments, perhaps on the same day? Is there anything within paragraph 51 in respect of those responsible for computers having some sort of duty to ensure that they are not churning out wildly different maintenance calculations that arrive on the same day, on the same doormat, and cause real anger and consternation?

James Plaskitt: We have been having a discussion about computers making decisions and a computer making one decision might be one thing, but a computer making half a dozen or a dozen different decisions on the same day and sending them all to the same person at the same time, is not acceptable. It does happen and it is exactly the sort of thing that the operational improvement plan fixes are designed to put right.

Danny Alexander: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Clause 13

Transfer of employees

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mark Harper: I have two points. The first we touched on briefly in the last debate and it focuses on the people who are going to be transferred to CMEC. Many of the problems that have been experienced by parents and families in the maintenance process have not been caused by Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations. In some ways, the staff of the agency are as much victims of the process. It came up during the evidence-taking session with the Minister and the chief executive of the agency that the morale in the agency was quite high and the staff were looking forward to this process taking place. It was worth getting that on the record.
I have one specific question for the Minister, in light of our debate on clause 8. He was keen not to fetter or limit the scope and flexibility of the commission, which is why clause 13(3)(a) amends the TUPE regulations to change the trade union recognition procedures that are standard in TUPE recognition, and removes the limitation that is normally there. That seems to fetter the role of the commission slightly and make it more difficult for it to take a different position in relation to trade union recognition. It would be helpful if the Minister could explain the logic behind that as TUPE regulations do not normally require that to be the case.

Paul Rowen: I agree that the clause is important. I was grateful to the Minister for agreeing this morning that the results of staff survey would be placed in the Library. I understand why subsections (2) and (3) are included. They modify the TUPE regulations so that existing trade unions who represent CSA employees can continue to do so. I am sure that most Members agree that that is a particularly important process in that it gives certainty to those employees that they will continue to get the same recognition.
I want to ask the Minister about subsection (5) and the circumstances in which he envisages an order-making power to exclude some people from transferring under the TUPE terms being used. I note that it is a negative resolution, so there is little opportunity for debate unless it is prayed against. Who does the Minister think would be covered by this subsection? Clearly, if it is widely exercised, it would cause concern to current employees of the CSA. Perhaps the Minister can tell us which employees could be affected by this subsection and why it is subject to a negative resolution.

James Plaskitt: As hon. Members know, we intend to transfer the child support functions, which are currently the responsibility of the Secretary of State, to the commission in 2008, at which point the CSA will cease to exist and the commission will be made responsible for delivering child maintenance services.
Clause 13 will ensure that, when those functions are transferred, all the people employed by the CSA will also transfer to the commission. In other words, it will ensure that, from day one, the commission will have the people that it needs to fulfil its responsibilities. There are exceptions, as the hon. Member for Rochdale said, and there are good reasons for them. We therefore expect to use clause 13(5) to exclude from the transfer those who are working at the CSA as consultants or working there under contract for a private sector organisation at the time of transfer.
The people employed by the CSA are its biggest asset. They will be critical to the development of the modern service that needs to be put in place. Our staff will provide the commission with a strong base on which to build. At this point, I should like to pay tribute to the agency’s staff. Over the past few months, my fellow Ministers in the Department and I have held question and answer discussion sessions at various CSA offices throughout the country, because we wanted the opportunity to discuss with staff this substantial change. Those meetings were widely welcomed by the staff involved, who, quite understandably, had a series of questions and some concerns about the big change that is happening in their organisation.
What came out of those meetings——and continues to come out of them as we hold them——was the huge commitment of the CSA staff, not only to their current task, to which their commitment is beyond any question, but to making CMEC work. After all, they want to be part of a successful child maintenance operation and they are prepared to give their all to help us to achieve that. Many of them have worked for the agency for a long time and have been in the difficult spot of working with a flawed design, which has been a tough task.
I can report that the staff are pleased with the introduction of the operational improvement plan. They have seen the tangible benefit of that additional investment. They see it as essential preparation of the ground, which we are going through with their help, for a smooth transition to CMEC. We need to do our best to look after the staff, who have worked extraordinarily hard and with great commitment to do their best with the CSA. They want to help us to deliver the marked improvement that CMEC will represent.

Andrew Selous: I want to put on record the official Opposition’s gratitude to the staff of the CSA. We all recognise that they share our frustration that child maintenance has not been conducted as successfully as they would have liked. I have met CSA staff who have travelled to my constituency office to deal with individual cases. They have been unfailingly courteous and have shared my frustration at not being able to resolve some of the cases on which we have worked together. I therefore echo the Minister’s remarks.

James Plaskitt: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s comments, as I am sure will staff throughout the agency.
Clause 13 will provide much-needed assurance to staff involved in the transfer. It will ensure that the protection offered by TUPE applies to the transfer, which will provide a clear guarantee to staff that the transfer will not affect their employment or their terms and conditions. The Committee will see that we have made separate provision to protect pensions in subsection (4).
I was asked why we are amending the trade union paragraphs. TUPE regulation 6 provides for a group of employees transferring under TUPE to retain access to their existing trade unions. However, because of the way in which the regulation is worded, it could be interpreted not to apply to the transfer of people to the commission. Clause 13(3) therefore includes a specific provision to ensure that the commission must recognise independent trade unions currently recognised by the Secretary of State.
The clause ensures that we are entirely in line with the Cabinet Office statement of practice on such transfers, which sets out clear guidelines on the treatment of staff and which should be followed whenever there is organisational change within the public sector. That is unequivocal about the fact that staff involved in transfers of functions should be treated fairly and consistently and their rights should be respected. Specifically, it states that departments must
“ensure that legislation effecting transfers of functions between public sector bodies makes provision for staff to transfer and on a basis that follows the principles of TUPE.”
That is exactly what this clause does. A number of provisions in the Bill should help to allay any concerns that our staff might have. The Bill provides that people will retain their terms and conditions on transfer, that they will continue to have access to the principal civil service pensions scheme and, as I have been saying, that their existing trade unions will be recognised by the commission.
I know that there are concerns about whether terms and conditions can be changed immediately after transfer. Let me reassure CSA staff now that the new employer cannot lawfully impose different terms and conditions without the agreement of the individual employee or trade union, and even then can do so only if the new terms and conditions are more favourable to the employee.
As an additional measure, we will enable staff who move to the commission to have access to Department for Work and Pensions vacancies for at least three years. We are also in discussion with the Cabinet Office to secure approval for people working in the commission to apply for inter-departmental vacancies advertised on the civil service recruitment gateway website.
Clause 13 is critical both for the success of the commission and for the reassurance of the people currently employed by CSA.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14

Transfer of property, rights and liabilities

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mark Harper: I want to make two brief points. The first concerns transparency, which we have already debated at length, so I shall not revisit the arguments. How does the Minister intend to publish the information when the Secretary of State makes a scheme of transfer? Will it be made available by the commission or the Minister, or placed in the Library of the House? What has he in mind from a transparency point of view?
My other question is on subsection (5). That refers to the certificate confirming the transfer to be given by the Secretary of State, whereas the explanatory notes say that the certificate will be given by the commission. I suspect that it should, indeed, be the Secretary of State, and it would be helpful if the Minister would clarify that.

Danny Alexander: I have a few questions to add. The clause looks innocuous, but one or two matters could usefully be fleshed out to help us to understand how the clause would be implemented should the Bill become law. I appreciate that the Minister’s throat is getting a bit dry after the number of speeches that he has been making, but I suspect that this will be his last, at least for today.
The clause relates to the transfer of property rights and liabilities from the Secretary of State to the commission and vice versa. It would be useful if the Committee could understand how the Minister envisages that working in practice. I presume, although the Minister should clarify this, that the measure applies to buildings currently occupied by the CSA, computers currently used by them and other fixtures and fittings of their buildings. Presumably, those things would be transferred to the commission. The clause is needed because the CSA is an Executive agency and its property is currently owned by the Secretary of State. A transfer would mean that, in future, that property would belong to the commission.
If that is the case, perhaps the Minister could explain what rights or interests over transferred property the Secretary of State may seek to retain in the case of such a transfer of property to the commission. Would it be a controlling interest that would give the Secretary of State a veto over any future disposals that the commission may make? For example, if the commission decides that it wishes to sell property, will he have the right to veto that decision or could the money that might be raised from the sale of property be returned to the consolidated fund, rather than becoming additional money in CMEC’s account?
I think that I am right in saying that the CSA occupies seven regional centres throughout the United Kingdom. Is it the Minister’s intention for CMEC to have initial access to all those centres and that the commission will take decisions about its property needs in due course or might he be inclined to dispose of some of that property to raise funds for the Exchequer before the commission is set up?
Finally, is the Minister considering any disposals or alternative uses for the property? Reduction of staffing has been a constant feature of these debates, so that may be an issue in that there may be a need for less property and fewer centres. Under this Government as under previous Governments, there has been a tendency to centralise services, core centres and so on. Does he predict that that is likely to happen in the future, with relation to property, computer systems and other goods and chattels?
I shall stray slightly to talk briefly about property disposals that may take place. There have been several debates about the future use of property that is owned by the public sector in relation to meeting housing needs. If the Minister were to give directions to the commission, would he advise it about how it might seek to dispose of property should it wish to do so? That property could be used, for example, by housing associations or other housing providers to provide affordable housing. I am sure that that would satisfy the Opposition and meet demands for brownfield sites.
Does the clause enable the Minister to give such directions to the commission to ensure that, if it is disposing of property, it will be done in a way that could meet other Government objectives? The point that I have just made would be one such relevant objective and, with that in mind, I look forward to the Minister’s response.

James Plaskitt: First, I shall try to deal with the points that have been raised about property. In general terms, the CSA has access to property via existing contracts under TUPE. All rights under those contracts will transfer to the commission. Long-term decisions about estate strategy will be a matter for the commission, which will review the situation as it evolves.
Clause 14 concerns the transfer of property rights and liabilities to the commission. The commission will need to operate from day one to enable those existing contracts and assets to be transferred from the CSA to the commission. It will benefit significantly by accessing the current contract, rather than being obliged to renegotiate afresh. First, most of the contracts are Department-wide and therefore make extensive savings through economies of scale. Secondly, many of them have been entered into on a long-term basis to achieve maximum efficiency. It is therefore in the commission’s interests that rights and liabilities are transferred under these contracts. Most contracts in which the commission has a partial or total interest will contain provisions allowing them to be novated or assigned—that is, allowing the straightforward transfer of the contractual rights and liabilities from the Department to the commission—and ownership of both assets can then simply be transferred. For example, if the supplier had contracted with the DWP to supply stationery to the CSA centre, the contract would be amended so that it should instead supply stationery to the commission. In a few specific cases that may not be possible. For instance, if the provisions in the contract are not extensive enough to allow for transfer to the commission, the power will simply allow the Secretary of State to transfer the property rights or liabilities in question through a scheme. Similarly, if it proves necessary for the commission to make use of property owned by the Department, the scheme could be created to provide for exactly that. It is not unusual for the transfer of property rights and liabilities to be provided for in this way. The clause echoes closely the provisions of section 41 of the Food Standards Act 1999.
On liabilities, the clause is intended to allow us to transfer contractual rights and liabilities and not to transfer the Secretary of State’s liability for previous actions. For example, the Secretary of State will retain liability for cases of maladministration that occurred before the handover.
These straightforward measures simply ensure that the commission is provided with the tools and capabilities it will need to function effectively as an organisation from the first day that it is set up.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

David Taylor: Order. There will now be 77 days of summer reflection.
Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. David.]

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Six o’clock till Tuesday 9 October at half-past Ten o’clock.